So don't be too shocked that the Arab League, which provided the vital regional backing for our no-fly zone proposal, is expressing unhappiness at the first claims by Khaddafi of children and puppies perishing in the free-fire zone that Libya has become, according to him:
Western forces pounded Libya's air defences and patrolled its skies on Sunday, but their day-old intervention hit a serious diplomatic setback as the Arab League chief condemned the "bombardment of civilians." ...
But Arab League chief Amr Moussa said what was happening was not what Arabs had envisaged when they called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.
They have a point, as I mentioned, that this isn't what they expected. Of course, as I argued repeatedly, a no-fly zone would have been ineffective in stopping Khaddafi--which is also probably what the Arab League envisioned. And Khaddafi's deliberate killing of civilians can't even be compared with accidental civilian deaths under our campaign--which will eventually happen, no doubt.
It was predictable that the Arab League would turn against a no-fly zone over Libya. To expect the Arab League to have continued to back our actual aerial war against Khaddafi should mean you have your Foreign Policy Realism membership card taken away from you.
So who will be next in the great coalition to head for the exits?
Isn't multi-lateralism grand?
